[70] Year Book, 33 Henry VI., 7, 23. [71] Cal. Proc. in Chan, i, ccxx-ccxxii. In Spence’s Equity Jurisprudence, this case is cited as one of the notable cases which finally helped to bring about the repeal of the law wager. [72] Goldsborough, 51, pl. 13; Doctor and Student, ii, c. 24; Thayer’s “Older Modes of Trial,” II. Anglo-American Legal History, p. 388. In the persecution of the reformers, in 1527, under Henry VIII., Margaret Cowbridge and Margery Bowgas were allowed to acquit themselves by the oaths of compurgators, although there were several witnesses against them, and the compurgators comprised several women in the test. [73] Slade’s Case, 4 Rep. p. 95. [74] Company of Glaziers’ Case, 2 Salk. 682. [75] 12 Mod. 669, 684. In Gunner’s case, in 1708, the plaintiff took a non-suit when the defendant was ready to wage his law. Jacob’s Review of the Statutes, (2 ed.) 532. [76] London vs. Wood, 12 Mod. 669, 679. This opinion of Lord Holt, that wager of law would not lie, unless the debt was a secret debt, is based upon the law, as stated by Sir Edward Coke, for he says: “The reason wherefore, in an action of debt upon a simple contract, the defendant may wage his law, is for that the defendant may satisfy the party in secret, or before witnesses and all the witnesses may die.” (II. Inst, 45.) But of course this same plea of payment would be good, whether the debt arose on contract or in parole, and the same reason would obtain for perpetuating the testimony, and this illustrates how an erroneous custom will live upon irrational doctrines. [77] 12 Mod. 669. [78] 12 Mod. 669. [79] I. B. & P. (N. P.) 297. [80] 2 Barnew & C. 538; 4 D. & R. 3. [81] V. Harvard Law Review; II. Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, 391. [82] King vs. Williams, 2 Barnew. & C. 538; 4 D. & R. 3. [83] 8 Wheaton, 642; 21 L. Ed. 705. [84] Palmer’s Rep. 14; Fleta, 136. [85] 8 Wheaton, 675; 21 L. Ed. 713. Compurgation was allowed in a charge of usury, by statute in Massachusetts, in 1783. (St. Mass. 1783, c. 55.) But in Little vs. Rogers, (1 Met. 108) Shaw, C. J., observes that the trial by jury has been “substituted for the old trial by oath.” Mr. Lea, in his excellent work, “Superstition and Force” (3 ed.) mentions the fact that in South Carolina, an act of the Legislature of 1712 mentions specific English laws as still in force and enumerates the law of compurgation, or wager of law, and that in Maryland, as late as 1811, Chancellor Kilty mentions the fact that wager of law has gone into disuse, because contrary to our spirit of law, but does not contend that it had then been specifically abolished, in Maryland. (Cooper’s Stat. at L. of So. Car. Columbia, 1837, II., 403; Kilty’s Report on English Statutes, Annapolis, 1811, p. 140; Lea, “Superstition and Force,” p. 81.) CHAPTER VIII. BENEFIT OF CLERGY.